But we wouldn't have made that trade if we were still "going for it"
Reloading and Punting: Is there a Distinction?
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
But we wouldn't have made that trade if we were still "going for it"
sturg33
I
I would have made that trade no matter what
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
See the sagacious reply from sturg above.
Heck, I would have to. It wouldn't have happened though.
sturg33
I
Not sure why. The Pads were hellbent on contending. Hart was hellbent on unloading BJ... you take that opportunity whether you're going for it or not. Hell, I'd have done it without Wisler
I don't know that Peraza alone would've gotten a "good one", but that's splitting hairs. It had to be Heyward to get Miller - don't think the Cards would've taken J-Up or Gattis, but that's splitting hairs too.
The point (for me) is that you'd then have weakened the system even further to "put another band aid" on the MLB roster to take one more shot with a team that was already worse than the Gnats, Cards, and Dodgers even if you'd kept J-Up and Gattis. I know people aren't thrilled with Markakis' defense in RF, but can you imagine how bad it would've been with Justin there and Gattis in LF everyday? Even if you'd done those things, you're looking at Melvin/B. J. or Cunningham in CF instead of Maybin because you wouldn't have traded Kimbrel if you were actually trying to make a run.
I'm all for selling out to make a run when you think you have a chance - I'm one of the select few who never had any issue with the Teixeira trade. The problem I have is doing things halfway. That's why I don't pay much attention when the talking heads spew GM-speak. Retool, rebuild, whatever means the same thing to me - "we realize our system sucks and we're going to address that by trading short-term assets to build the depth we need in the future to be competetive for a much longer period than 1-2 years."
This is why I think Wren got a bit of the shaft from many. He assembled a team that was "close", but it needed a couple more important pieces. Some people around here think you can only be on one side or the other - that agreeing with what Hart's doing somehow means you'd throw Wren under the bus. Why can't you say that you thought Wren put together a team that had a chance but needed one of two things - 1.) ownership to step up and increase payroll so he could land that "Ace" they needed, or 2.) more high-end prospects to trade for an inexpensive "Ace" without saying he was terrible?
I personally thought Wren did a pretty commendable job with what he was handed. The problem was that he had a small window of time to get the team over the top when it became evident Heyward and J-Up were going to grab for the money instead of a ring. I also think Hart is doing a great job now that the decision has finally been made to blow it up and rebuild the system. Could Wren have done just as good a job if he'd have been given that goal? Who knows? That wasn't something he'd done before and Hart had, but I'm not personally someone who would say he couldn't have.
Again, I don't think you go halfway regardless of what decision was made. If you're going "all-in", do it and blow the payroll and gut the system for the surest things you can possibly get. Otherwise, don't hang onto a couple good players who can ALMOST get you there and think your system's going to improve when they walk and you get a player picked in the 30s to "replace" them.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
And that's the key. They could have gone either way and made a run at the playoffs in 2015 with Heyward and J. Upton and then let them walk for draft picks or move up the re-build by a year. I frankly don't think we could have been a playoff contender in 2015 given the state of our pitching staff without the acquisition of a couple of solid starters. Given Minor's injury, we were going to be forced to replace around 550 IP, which means we would have probably seen Williams Perez at any rate.
Where you and I disagree a bit is on the meaning of the plenitude of pitching out there. There wasn't a lot of solid one-year guys out there, meaning we would have had to give a two-year deal to someone like Volquez (which wouldn't have been bad) or trade a minor leaguer or two from an already-thin farm system to field a competitive rotation. I don't think there's any question that the bullpen would have been much better (light years better) without the trades, but given Teheran's struggles, we're probably a .500 team at best even if we hit the p*ss out of the ball on a regular basis. Of course, one can only project on expectations and a Teheran/Wood 1-2 isn't a bad place to start a rotation, but if everything that has transpired thus far this season (Minor's injury, La Stella's injury, Teheran's ineffectiveness) would have transpired, we would have been in dicey territory.
As per the decision to go all-in on the "trough," I only have a couple of quibbles. One is with the order of the trades. If they would have packaged the Uptons and Kimbrel in a trade to San Diego before making any other deals, they could have made a serious run at keeping Heyward (although I've been convinced over the past couple of seasons that Heyward is intent on testing free agency so that would have been left up in the air) and planning the rest of the off-season in a less drastic manner. I wasn't averse to having Gattis in LF on a semi-regular basis. The total and complete dismantling of the squad after the major moves often looked like "change for the sake of change" more than anything else and I don't like arbitrary. One thing I may have done differently is consider trading Simmons during the off-season and moving Peraza back to SS. I think Simmons is somewhat of a luxury and I don't think he's ever going to really hit.
I think the two late-season deals are also odd, if nothing else. I'm not that big a fan of Wood and I think Peraza has lost some luster, but Olivera is a pretty big gamble, especially if it takes more than a couple of seasons for the team to become competitive again. I also think it would have made more sense to simply release Chris Johnson than bring in Swisher and Bourn. I think the white flag went up when Kelly Johnson and Juan Uribe were shipped to the Mets, but if you're punting, you might as well kick it all the way out of the end zone.
I think this is going to take longer than a couple of years. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Cubs stunk for five years before putting it together this year and it might take us that long to put things together. I think we will get steadily better, but probably in small increments.
PS--I think there is a clear distinction between reloading and punting. Reloading infers that you have major league-ready or near major league-ready talent prepared to assume the positions being vacated through trades or losses attributable to free agency. Punting means "wait until next year or the year after that or the year after that . . ."
The Red Sox system is absolutely not as deep as ours. I think people see a 15th-ranked prospect and just assume a certain talent level because they're ranked 15th in a system. But our 15th would be someone like Dustin Peterson, who would likely be top 7 or 8 in most systems.
And the reason depth is good, especially high-ceiling depth, is because someone like Lucas Sims, who had fallen outside our top 10, has the talent to finally put it together, and it looks like he may be doing that. When you have as many of those guys as we do, the chances of a few hitting are much higher.
When I say 'depth,' I don't mean a bunch of future utility players and long relievers. I mean a bunch of guys with the talent to be at least solid regulars in the majors. We have a lot of those guys.
As for the idea of not trading those guys and trying to go for it, even if it did only accelerate the rebuild by one year (which I disagree with), it was still likely worth it. We probably wouldn't have competed, our system would be much weaker, and we probably would have had to use more of our system to make moves in a desperate attempt to stay competitive. The FO made the tough, but in my opinion right, move to blow it up a year early, a year where we probably wouldn't compete anyway, in order to accelerate the rebuild.
Using nsacpi's rationale, we would have had a lineup of:
BJ (could have maybe used a little money for someone else, but who?) - probably 0 WAR at best
Gattis - 0.4 WAR this year
Heyward - 4 WAR
Upton - 2.9 WAR
Simmons - 2.4 WAR
Freeman - 2.3 WAR
La Stella - 0 WAR in very little playing time but -0.2 last year
3B? Who are you putting there? Kubitza? Because CJ is garbage.
Teheran - 0.6 WAR
Wood - 2.3 WAR
?
?
?
Kimbrel - 1.1 WAR
That is about 15 WAR, on pace for about 18, so in order to even compete for the playoffs, you probably need at the very least 20 more WAR. You have CF, possibly 2B or 3B, 3 SP slots, and a bullpen to find that 20 WAR, with limited money. Show me how you do it.
And you also have a much weaker farm system, you still have BJ's contract, and if you trade Heyward for Shelby, you add basically no overall value to the team.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The ONLY place we have an advantage on the Sox is in high-ceiling arms. Dustin Peterson would get lost in the Red Sox system.
We have tremendous depth in talented arms. Good thing, too, considering the burn rate that you mention. After that, it's a bunch of youngsters mostly in Rookie ball. I like them, too, but it's too early to start calling them likely everyday MLB talent.
We have tremendous depth in talented arms. Good thing, too, considering the burn rate that you mention. After that, it's a bunch of youngsters mostly in Rookie ball. I like them, too, but it's too early to start calling them likely everyday MLB talent.
The Red Sox' 14th-best prospect is Garin Cecchini, who OPS'd .581 at AAA this year. There is no one who would tell you their depth is better or similar to ours. Peterson's OPS has dropped to just under .700, but that is largely due to a huge slump after coming back from the bus crash. He isn't a top prospect, but he has legitimate talent, is the kind of guy who could bust out at any point, and is pretty much lost in our system, honestly. MLB.com ranked him 15th, and that's a little high, especially considering they have Riley below him.
Our system's value is largely in its high-ceiling arms, so saying that's the only place we beat them is kind of just wording it in a way to make it sound like it's not impressive. We destroy the Red Sox system in high-ceiling arms, and outside of their top 2-3 hitters, we're pretty even there as well. And in terms of ceiling, it's probably relatively similar. Theirs are just closer to being ready.
Also, I never said anything about likely everyday MLB guys. I said they have that kind of talent, and yes, even in rookie ball, that can be determined. Granted, it's determined by people far more qualified than me, but that's what they're saying. Guys like Riley, Yepez, Allard, Soroka, etc. do have that level of talent. So do about 15 other guys in our system. That is simply not the case with other systems.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Here is a recent assessment from Jim Callis. Not saying he or anyone else is the final word on this subject. But you should consider the possibility that other knowledgeable people have a different take.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/142897918/best-minor-league-systems-in-baseball
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think Albies, Allard, Soroka, Riley, Yepez and Acuna are all potential difference makers. With the exception of Riley none came in a trade. We used a pick that was acquired in a trade for Riley. So far Riley looks like he is much more valuable that the typical player taken 40th or so, which makes him more a reflection on our amateur scouting and drafting group than anything else.
Among the guys we got in trades, the only one I have high expectations for is Wisler.
sturg33
I
I really have a hard time seeing a speedy slap hitter as a difference maker. There's just so few of them in baseball, I can't possibly count on it. \
Not saying they can't be solid players, just don't think they'll be perennial 4 WAR guys. Certainly could be wrong
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Albies is very young and already gives signs of having some pop in his bat. Altuve put up 4.8 WAR last year and is at 3.3 this year.
Altuve is special. Hopefully Albies is as well, but I do agree that speedy slap hitters are a dime a dozen, which is why I didn't mind trading Peraza.
I agree, which is why I'm surprised so many have called the pick we got in the Olivera trade a lottery ticket. By all accounts this is supposed to be a much better draft and that pick should be in the high 20's to low 30's.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
And yet guys like Bourn have managed to get some nice contracts over the years. Ben Revere brought back a pretty highly rated prospect when the Twins traded him a couple years ago. I think speedy players who give you strong defense at a premium position have a lot of value even if they have minimal power. If they can put up an ISO of .100 or better they are gold.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
No, he isn't.
No, we're not. Not even close.
And ignoring their top 2-3 is at least as big an oversight as you say my discounting out top end arms is.
Who else thinks we have the deepest system?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Yes. It is valuable. And so would the picks we would have gotten if Heyward and Upton had played to free agency with us.
As a general proposition letting a guy go to free agency is not necessarily a bad thing. It obviously turns on your assessment of where the team stands. The Cardinals (an organization that seems to do one or two things right) have been willing to take guys like Holliday, Pujols and Heyward to free agency. We did ok taking our chances with McCann and Santana. We got Davidson and Soroka with those picks I believe.